FLOURMILLING CASE.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18220, 3 November 1924, Page 5

FLOURMILLING CASE.

DEFENCE OPENED. (PRISS ASSOCIATION TTLIGBAM.) DUNEDIN. November 1. In the flniirmilHrtp rase, the defend was opened fry Mr Myers, who stated that while there was a very strong argument for asking the Court for a motion of non-suit, it was preferable that evidence should be heard. It was plain that the fixation of prices fry a commercial trust was no offence, unless the prices were unreasonably high. was also submitted that the c-oinfrina-tion was not illegal, unless contrary to public interest?, nor was the agreement contrary to public interests merelv because, it was in restraint °t trade." The fact that the scheme might cause a certain amount of inconvenience to a certain nnmber of traders did not bring it within the provisions of the statute. A scheme which was reasonablv necessary for the protection of industry and was intended to keep up prices did not constitute an offence, unless Ihe price fixed was unreasonably high. This case became one of fact, as to whether the scheme was contrary to public interests. The onus of proving that was on the Crown. Counsel was unable to see how the case came under Sections ?> and 4 of the Act. The contention that it came under Section 3 was an attempt to bring it in the same position as the sugar case. It was clear that the sections mentioned dealt only with the transactions of buying and selling, and were not applicable. Everybody knew these sections were intended to meet the case of a. certain organisation that had a. partial monopoly whose system was to sell goods upon such terms that after a certain period, if the customer had not bought the same class of goods from anyone else, he was given a rebate. Section 4 was to coyer u converse case, that of refusing consideration, where a company fixed its charges with the object of preventing someone from getting a, rebate. Mr Myers, in concluding his address, which was made on behalf of all the defendants, said, in reply 1" * lic Judge, that no substantial profit was made bv Distributors. Mr Mvers, continuing, said that the company at the outset disclosed the nature of its operating to the Board of Trade and to the Department of Industries and Commerce, which fully understood the terms of t lie agency agreement. This was shown by the answers given by the Ministers in the House. It was in the following October, November, and December period of 1923 that protests were made by the Southland bakers, and some months later the action was commenced. • There were no disaffected bakers outside Otago and Southland. Counsel contended that the action against Distributors, Ltd., was entirely unnecessary. The formation of Distributors, Ltd., brought about a reduction of 4s a ton in the price of bran and pollard, without any corresponding increase in the price of Hour. The formation of Distributors, Ltd., has made it possible to stabilise various allied industries. Had it not been for the establishment of Distributors, Ltd., wheat agreements of 1D23-4 would not, and could not, have been made, and chaotic conditions would have resulted. But for the stabilisation of the industry, New Zealand would have had to import most of its wheat, bran, and pollard from Australia. At the time Distributors, Ltd., was formed, it was presumed that, the embargo on Australian wheat would be removed at the cud of February, 1923. The agreement contained clauses providing against the general output of poor quality flour. It was not denied that serious inconvenience was caused in Southland, but the position would have been as bad under free competition. Evidence for the defence will be taken' on Monday.